It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all). We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

Aver: For example I like that on GG I can buy games that are unavailable on other sites.

Exactly. And i really think that offering "as most games as possible" helps GG in a way. WHat i like the most about GG is exactly the fact that they offer some games not available anywhere. They had the first Thief on sale years before it appeared on GOG and Steam. There are quite a few hidden gems in GG's catalog not available in any other digital service (like some russian games such as Xenus 2 and Precursors, even though these are also available in Beamdog).

I don't care if some of these games are not that good, i just want to have the option to buy them. I don't want a company to make decisions on which games are good and which games are bad and therefore will not be available to the consumer. I want to make this decision myself. And GG allows that. I can buy Daikatana there, even though people hate it. That's what i love about GG.

I like that GOG is kind of selecting the releases and not releasing everything. I know the releases they have have often high quality and are worth considering thoroughly. On the other hand GamersGate publishes 80% crap. It's a waste of time to even look at them.

I am only worried about the high quality games that GOG is not releasing. I wonder why? Is it really less flexible pricing model? After reading this thread I am still not sure. Or is it deliberate of GOG (too high standards)? I don't really believe this. Maybe it's just the DRM or devs are still not aware of GOG or GOG is simply too insignificant.

GOG.com--to my knowledge--hasn't approached that developer at all. So any information he may or may not have about what revenue shares we offer may or may not be correct for what we might have offered him. GOG.com doesn't talk about our business negotiations with any potential, past, present, or even declined partners, as a rule, because of NDAs and also because that's generally considered poor form.

What I will say is that GOG.com is, for almost all of the games that people think of us for, the smaller partner in the deal: Interplay, EA, Square Enix, Ubisoft, Atari, and so on are all much larger teams with bigger overhead, more caution regarding P&Ls of their product, and are generally more able to walk away from a deal that they don't like than GOG is. The fact that we have signed more than 450 games on GOG.com and that we enjoy an excellent reputation in the industry as a distributor that does everything we can to make each game we sell visible and a success among our users means that we're clearly negotiating in good faith with these parties and that they are all pleased with the offers we've made them.

We'll continue to do everything we can to bring all of you the best games that we can find at fair prices; we're in the fortunate position now, nearly four years into operation, that the challenges we face are no longer, "Do we have a game to release today" but are rather, "What games can we release that will excite you guys the most?" Sometimes, we can't come to an agreement on terms for games that you guys might like to see on GOG, and that's always unfortunate. But rest assured that we're always trying to make sure that what we do release are the best PC games throughout history, whether they're well-loved classics or promising brand-new titles.

It is fascinating that people discuss 70/30 split w/o actually looking at the online distribution market. Stores that provide 70:30 revenue split: Apple AppStore, Android Market (most of them), Windows store, Amazon Kindle Store, Google Music Store. Probably many more. It is what it is for better and worse, most developers hate this split, some were able to break it (well, Rovio did on Android Market).

But this is for (mostly) new games released on mobile devices which is not what GOG is selling. Since GOG is not a "pay us to certify your game and we'll publish whatever" store, it doesn't have to (and most likely doesn't) use some fixed revenue split formula. I'm sure they were negotiating with every single content owner separately for every single game (especially in the early days). Whatever people say about GOG's revenue split, it's probably their experience or even presumption about the platform.

ktchong: How the revenue is split matters to me. I would not buy from a digital distribution that is too greedy and takes away too much revenue from the developer.

But how would GOG negotiate a very customer-sided deal with publishers that typically crap on their customers if they were offering an equal or worse deal than Steam? Especially when publishers don't even care about the games GOG is asking about.

Just today Apple adjusted it's app prices in Europe. On this occasion their revenue share was mentioned. It's 60/40 not 70/30. For closed system like the Apple 60/40 seems to be a better estimation of the industry standard.

Example: GOG worked for months to make Carmageddon playable on modern Pcs. They have exclusive rights to distribute it over a certain period of time. But then, the Carmageddon owners will be free to sell it everywhere else. GOG invested time and money into making Carmageddon playable. The deserve the bigger share than the "industry standard"